Shouldn't have listened to Shrum on giving an internationalist message. This has consistently failed the Democratic Party. Should have confronted cultural issues head on, instead of avoiding them. Should have gone after Bush on the 'there will be no casualties' line. Should have focused on values more than healthcare.

C

Logged

I'm a proud NH Primary voter for 2008.

Harry Reid 08'

"As some warn victory, some downfallPrivate reasons great or smallCan be seen in the eyes of those that callTo make all that should be killed to crawlWhile others say don't hate nothing at allExcept hatred."

On the one hand, there were certain elements that were well-run, and he definitely gave the president a better fight than anyone would have anticipated 1-2 years ago.

On the other hand, he never offered a coherent alternative to President Bush. He flip-flopped to the point where even his closest supporters couldn't possibly anticipate what he would do as president, or make sense of his varying stands on the issues. He criticized President Bush, but spent more time saying what he would have done up to this point (after voting mostly in support of what the president did) rather than saying what he would do going forward.

A fairly good campaign can't make up for a lack of intellectual consistency by a candidate.

Kerry gets a C. He only gets that because the MSM never ask him the tough questions that were thrown at Bush. And Bush dropped the ball in the first debate. But Kerry kept screwing up by making cracks about Bush's faith. That hurt him badly because morality was the top issue for voters. And his hunting in Ohio! Come on, that was ridiculous. It just brought out in aces that he was still trying to figure out who he was. But, having to run on the Democratic ticket, he was an overachiever. The Democratic party needs to look at itself. It is on the verge of becoming marginalized, maybe even insignificant for many years to come. In Ohio, it offered very little help to Kerry.

He didn't do very well because he didn't attack Bush enough. The Bush campaign was much dirtier, and Kerry should've gone whole-hog negative in response. Instead he took the high road, and worst of all appealed to reason rather than emotion - which left out the great majority of the American public.

1. Kerry seems to have led in WV early on2. For some insane reason, Kerry's "strategists" decided to silently pull resources out of WV. Although some went to OH, they mostly went to VA. This started almost as soon as they got to WV (ie: early spring. Yes. That early)3. Because there were less resources in WV the local Party Bosses got angry with the Kerry campaign.4. Kerry's numbers started to drop because there were less resources/local party bosses pissed off. Result: more resources pulled out, visits cancelled, party bosses even more pissed off. You get the idea. By November State and Federal Parties weren't talking to each other (note that Manchin won the Gubernatorial race in a landslide)5. Some party bosses began to covertly aid the Bush campaign.6. Someone (almost certainly a pissed off local boss) began to circulate some evil little leaflets claiming (amoungst other things) that Kerry "wanted to ban the Bible". As a result Evangelical turnout soared.7. Kerry's campaign failed to seize on the fact that Bush intends to reduce safety regulations in mines. Result? Coalfield turnout more-or-less the same as 2000 (up about 3% on average. Actually down in some areas). Only a solid campaign by the UMW stopped the WV result from turning into a KY like result.8. Etc, etc, etc

I found out most of this from a (very) reliable source three days ago.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that both the Democratic candidates' wives turned out to be a liability, in my opinion.

Initially, I liked Teresa Heinz because she wasn't afraid to say what she thought. But after a few times, her statements started to rub me the wrong way. She reminded me a lot of Betty Ford - being applauded for her "outspokenness" without regard to the nonsensical content of much of what she was saying. I strongly suspect that she has some of the same problems that Betty Ford was suffering from (alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, or both).

Mrs. Edwards really rubbed me the wrong way when she said that the Cheney's were upset about Kerry mentioning their daughter's lesbianism because they felt shame. It was a nasty, catty little comment and revived unpleasant images of other people I have known who have gone around sticking their nose into other people's business without being invited.

The reality is that a political spouse, for the most part, can only be a neutral or a negative. Laura Bush's extreme popularity probably was a small net plus, but I doubt too many people who weren't already planning to vote for Bush switched to him because of his wife. On the other hand, she sure didn't drive away any voters, which I suspect the wives of Kerry and Edwards did, with their comments.